Republicans rally as Virginians turn against Obama

[babsbunny]

Republicans rally as Virginians turn against Obama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/30/virginia-governor-election-barack-obama

Re-energised Republicans portray Virginia governor's race as a referendum on Obama, and polls suggest his man will lose

* Chris McGreal in Manassas, Virginia
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 18.35 GMT
* Article history

Nancy Breeden was not sucked in by the euphoria that swept Barack Obama to power and landed him the first victory by a Democratic presidential contender in Virginia in more than four decades.

"I was going to vote for John McCain but it terrified me that if anything happened to him we would have this totally ignorant woman as president. So I voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils," said the 77-year-old, as she half-watched the news on a television larger than almost anything else in her living room.

[Deja Q]

1. Just as long as they stay Virgins - we don't need any more of that lot...

:hide:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. An interesting observation

And one I'm not sure has really been explored by the analysts.

How many of those who voted for Obama did so more out of fear of Palin than out of a genuine preference for Obama over McCain?

And how has the Obama administration addressed that potential for backlash, as the "I woulda voted for McCain except I was scared to death of Palin" puke and indie voters go back to voting R in subsequent elections?

I understand that the D successes in 2008 house and senate races indicate taht there was a huge Obama coattail effect. But that was one election and it was under extraordinary circumstances. The question is, how well has the Obama administration and/or the Obama leadership on the issues helped to consolidate those gains?

This is why those who keep begging that we adamant progressives be more patient and not demand results in the first six months or even year are, imho, misguided. Obama doesn't have his whole term to effect the changes he wants; he really only has one year, because one year into his term is the beginning of another election cycle. If his party doesn't have triumphs to brag about -- and remember that ALL members of the house have to stand for re-election (or retire) -- then they are vulnerable to the claim that the leader has failed to lead.

The wars are still going on, the economy is still struggling, and health care is still unchanged. Obama has no signature success for his party to hang their campaign hats on, and if more of the anti-Palin voters go back to their own party in 2010, we could be in for a surprise a year from now.

But of course, I'm just the concern troll called



Tansy Gold

[theHandpuppet]

3. Good post.

I think there are some folks who are going to be sorely disappointed when reality sets in.

[iceman66]

7. This works both ways

If Palin gets the nomination in 2012, which I would not rule out by any means, the anti-Palin effect will be amplified and Obama should sweep the independent vote.

[Tansy_Gold]

11. I'm far less concerned about 2012 than I am about 2010

And if Obama doesn't manage to get some of his major campaign promises kept -- EVEN IF IT'S REALLY THE FAULT OF CONGRESS -- his party is going to have a hard time maintaining the margins they've got now.

The Dems need to go after Lieberman and go after him HARD. He's acting like an abuser. And if the leadership doesn't come from Reid, it HAS to come from Obama. He knows where the buck stops.


TG

[Cant trust em]

13. Health Care reform will happen by the midterms.

Mark my words.

[Tim01]

8. Yep. 2008 was the perfect storm for dems. As good as it gets, pretty much.

Opinion of the repubs in the shitter all across the country. A charismatic, popular dem presidential candidate. The first potential black president, which brought out voters in swarms. And the spectre of a potential repub president who is old enough to die in office leaving Palin *shudders* as the first woman president of the U.S., an uncultured, fundamentalist christian, with a family history of bad decisions.Basically a dumb redneck.
I DO know people who voted for Obama because they were terrified by the thought of Palin as president.

The next election cycles will not be so good for dems.

[woo me with science]

21. I agree and remember saying this at the time of the election.

I knew many people who voted for Obama solely because of Palin.

[Captain Hilts]

4. They're not turning against Obama, Obama supporters just aren't turning out for Deeds.

Blacks and young people aren't showing that they'll turn out to vote. Hence the Prez's trips to Hampton Roads.

[treestar]

5. One 77 year old woman gets to speak for an entire state

If that's the reason she voted for him, then she should be happy for Obama's entire term. Just think of Palin sitting in the Oval Office.

[nevergiveup]

6. If DU is any indication then Obama is toast in 2012.

It doesn't matter that he inherited the 2nd largest economic meltdown in American history. He has had 9 months to perform miracles and so far the economy is still bouncing along at the bottom. The wars are still going and whether or not we get any health care reform at all is still questionable. The American voter has a short memory. Personally I think it would be foolish to bet big against Obama turning this around but my confidence is not such that I would bet the farm. I am still hopeful but there are days when the doom and gloom overwhelm me.

[Tansy_Gold]

12. I think you're wrong, and I think you misjudge the critics

It's not that Obama has had 9 months to perform "miracles." It's that he's had 9 months to perform. Period.

Health care reform is still a no-show. That the shots are being called by an R from Maine and a traitor from CT instead of by the President of the United States makes him look weak and ineffectual.

The economy is still in the shitter and too many people have been saying the same ol' same ol' "stimulus" routine ain't workin' and ain't gonna work.

The wars go on and any decrease in Iraq is countered with increases in Afghanistan. Strategy hasn't changed and policy hasn't changed. Corrupt elections in Iraq = corrupt elections in Afghanistan. No change.

Three biggies and he hasn't -- yet -- delivered on any of them.

He has a limited amount of time, and that time is runnin' out.



TG

[Cant trust em]

14. THe fortunate news about the economy is that Obama inherited it at the bottom.

It has 4 years to turn around on his watch.

The worst case scenario would have been for Bush to have been setting up collapse for 8 years and then Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt under Obama's watch.

[Tansy_Gold]

18. No, it has two years. And one is almost up

Obama has a solid majority in the House right now, but the Senate is much more dicey. The 60-vote majority includes the traitor Lieberman and the frail Byrd. The loss of either one puts much in jeopardy on any issue.

That's why it was essential that Obama strike fast and hard with legislation in the FIRST 9 MONTHS of his term. That 9 months represents the time between his inauguration and the anniversary of his election. The first 3 months are transition and should best serve to set up the opening legislative salvos.

That didn't happen.

Simple things like repeal of DADT didn't happen. Yes, there were other things that DID happen, GOOD things, but they weren't as closely tied to the campaign as the wars, the economy, and health care.

The complaints about the booooosh administration that it was constantly campaigning are perhaps even MORE true of Obama. Except that while boooooosh campaigned, cheeeeney ruled. Obama doesn't, thank the goddess, have a cheeeeney behind him pullin' the strings.

But Obama isn't delivering on his major campaign promises, and that could seriously hurt the Dems a year from now.

He's had a year. We've given him the transition period. We've given him the 100 days. We've given him six months. What do we have to show for it? No HCR. No end to the wars. More lost jobs and bigger Wall Street bonuses than ever.

So don't be surprised if the pukes make substantial gains a year from now. It won't be so much because Obama supporters have switched sides; it'll be because they've given up.

I haven't, or I wouldn't be



Tansy Gold

[Cant trust em]

19. What's interesting is that the three things you mention (economy, wars, health care)

aren't quick solutions.

We've been debating health care for 6 months and it's in the 4th quarter at this point.

The economy is a HUGE mess to untangle.

We have two wars (One since 2001 and another since 2003).

I'm not really disagreeing with you because I know how short attention spans are in this country, but realistically these situations are far more complicated to be completely solved in one year.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. They don't have to be "completely" solved in a year

That's what gets me so angry with those who put down us critics, saying that we expected magic-wand miracles from Obama. There's a HUGE difference between "miracles" and "nothing accomplished." All we wanted was someting in the "in between" that demonstrates progress is being made, we're getting closer and closer to the solution, things are getting better.

1. Health care reform: Yes, there are a number of bills out there, and yes, some of them include a public option that might cover a few million people by 2013. The problem is, every time some progress is made, some asshole comes along to screw it up, to postpone it, to delete or amend a crucial aspect. Right now, Joe Lieberman could put the whole thing on hold indefinitely. And instead of standing up to the old prune face, the Dem leadership including Obama just stand around with their thumbs up their butts and let him grab all the publicity. All the promises of "a health care bill by August" or whenever are gone. There is no health care reform -- YET -- and when people get their promises broken often enough they tend to lose faith. The boy who cried wolf and all that. So far what's come out of congress is entirely a congressional product. There's been little demonstrated leadership on the issue from Obama.

2. The economy: The current administration is following almost exactly the same failed game plan as the previous administration when it comes to "fixing" the problems. I suspect that when all the "stimulus" money is accounted for, most of it will have gone to shoring up state budget deficits. Teachers will be paid and cops will be paid and so on, but few substantive jobs will have been created. There may be some infrastructure repairs, but even that isn't what the economy needs. Bottom line is that the national economy needs manufacturing jobs, and unless and until this administration begins addressing that fundamental issue, the economy is going to continue to limp along until it finally collapses like WTC1 and WTC2 and someone has a Condi Rice moment and says "We never could have imagined. . . . " Except that a whole lot of people DID imagine it but they weren't listened to.

3. The wars: We don't even hear much about Iraq any more. What's going on there? Are we drawing down? Are the Shi'ite militias taking over? Is there a functioning government? Are the utilities being restored? Is the oil being pumped? Whenever there's no news coming out of a situation like Iraq, we should be suspicious. If the news is good, it should be trumpeted as a "victory" for the administration's policies there. I mean, hell, why WOULDN'T the administration want to spread some good news for a change? Well, they aren't, so maybe the news ain't so good, know what I mean? Because we know the news out of Afghanistan is terrible. Karzai is probably as corrupt as his brother, the drug lord on the CIA's payroll. American deaths are up, the Taliban remains a serious threat on several fronts, al-Qaeda remains a massive smoke screen for a variety of crimes and criminals. If there are any successes in either theatre, why isn't the administration getting the "mission accomplished" message out there? Is it because there ARE NO SUCCESSES to brag about?


AGAIN -- it's not that Obama hasn't done anything. Nor is it that we're demanding he do everything. It's that there needs to be demonstrable progress on those three major issues and so far there hasn't been enough.


We here on DU are pretty well informed, and we know how to dig into some of the issues and get to the facts. Most of the voting public doesn't know squat beyond what they see on the tv and on the front page headlines, and it doesn't really matter if it's Fox or The Nation. The administration has no huge victories to celebrate and grab the public's attention. Obama desperately needed to consolidate his victory with the marginal voters, with the ones who were terrified of Palin more than they were enamored of Barack. But he hasn't done that, and he doesn't have much time left to consummate this marriage of convenience.


Tansy Gold

[EarlG]

9. Couple of interesting tidbits about this race

According to Wikipedia, "Of note, in every Virginia gubernatorial election starting with 1977, the governor elected has been from the opposite party as the President elected by the nation in the previous year, even when Virginia had strongly voted for the President in question, as with Ronald Reagan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Virginia

This also held true in 2001, less than two months after 9/11, when Virginia elected Mark Warner during a period when George W. Bush's approval ratings were sky-high. Lest we forget, the Democrats got creamed in the 2002 mid-terms.

Going by the results since 1977, it would actually be a big statistical upset if Deeds won this year. Regardless, the Virginia gubernatorial election is not a very reliable predictor of future congressional races.

[graywarrior]

10. You're too rational.

Are you new here?

[RagAss]

17. Thanks for the sanity check.

We need all we can get around here,lately.

[Cant trust em]

15. Honestly, I'm still surprised that Obama won by as much as he did anyway.

If you would have told me in September last year that we would have won Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Florida, I would have laughed.

[Arkana]

16. Once again the Guardian demonstrates that it has, at best, a tenuous grasp

on American politics.

[jmowreader]

22. McDonnell is running on what seems to be the standard Repuke platform

"Traditional marriage," guns and abortion.

I tell ya, someone should start a whispering campaign that Bob McDonnell is really for Old Testament marriage: wait till your daughter has her first period, then marry her off to a guy with nine other wives and sixty children so she can start poppin' out one a year until she dies in childbirth--which was EXACTLY how they did it in those days.